Is atheism self-contradictory ?

[downbeatplumb]

I can't believe how stupid all of you people are... it's fucking nuts.

Many of you don't believe in God or dislike religion for emotional reasons--and all of you have been brainwashed by contemporary society into thinking religion/God = Harry Potter.

I don't believe in god because it is a stupid child like idea. I used to think that people were all of roughly equal intelligence and then I started encountering theists and discovered that actually there are many complete morons in the world.

And when a person presents you with evidence or a good argument, you either ignore it completely, respond with snark, or talk amongst yourselves about "Sky Daddies," hand wave, or cheer lead: "You really got him good when you mentioned sky daddies!" Guys, you do realize that none of this is funny or amusing? You just make yourselves look stupid. All you're doing is demonstrating that you can't hang; you're unable to defend your world view.

Lets be clear we have a thing called "standards" you cant just claim something is sufficient evidence and then get all nasty when we don't find it convincing. It means you failed.

Mix all of this with a subculture of people who do not read science or philosophy while pretending that they read science and philosophy--and you have the Atheist Forum.

I do read science but I don't read philosophy. but what I can say is this I have never believed in god. Not for a second of my life and have seen no reason to start. how can this be? Its because I am English and religion is kinda dying over here and has been for a loooong time.

And after everything that has been said, most of you still do not understand that evolution doesn't necessarily lead to brains that are predisposed to producing true beliefs. Part of the problem is you guys don't seem to know what "necessarily" means in logic.

So what?

A brain that is tuned for ascertaining truths and falsehoods doesn't necessarily follow from evolution.

So what?

For instance, a mutation could be introduced into a species that negatively affects the cognitive faculties but nevertheless dramatically increases the survivability in that species through a different means. The mutation would then be passed down to later generations. Or a mutation could be introduced that produces a false belief, but the false belief increases survivability. "If you don't drink enough water, you'll explode" That's a false belief, but it would result in higher survivability. Moreover, a mutation could be introduced that would produce a false belief in the brain, but since the false belief doesn't affect the survivability of the species, it persists. So, millions of years later, a species may have numerous false beliefs--none of which negatively affected their surviability.

Indeed Richard Dawkins used this very argument to explain the existence of the false belief of religions, they were memes that survived despite their obvious falsehood.

Finally, it may be that our brains are very good at things like "stay away from spiders" or "don't jump off cliffs" but they aren't good at abstract concepts like mathematics and philosophy. This is because there's no chance for evolution to prefer or disprefer such abstract concepts. How could it? A caveman that is good at metaphysics isn't going to be able to run any faster from predators.

Ah but a brain that is good at evading predators can also be good at metaphysics as by product. if a brain is capable of concepts then the concepts can expand and expand until you get computers and especially when you add language and storing information externally in other people or paper or the interwebz.

If there is a positive effect in terms of surviability it would be negligible compared to a mutation that would, for instance, strengthen the legs allowing for a faster sprint.

But running isn't the only thing animals do though is it?

Are none of you intelligent enough to follow the aforementioned points? Are none of you intelligent enough to rebut them?

Rebut what exactly. You seem to be reinforcing the argument for no god.